Fight CISPA Again

It’s back, and it has to be defeated, again. Go blackout to protest. Call your Senators.  Sign the petition calling on Obama to veto it. Call the White House demanding he veto it. Stay off the internet.

White House petition

Call the White House at (202) 456-1111 or (202) 456-1414

Don’t JUST take online slacktivist action, but do that, too.  Go Blackout on April 22!

In case you are unaware what CISPA is, here is a brief from the EFF.

Put Away Childish Things

Recently I have been having an ongoing discussion wherein I have maintained that one of the most significant differences between liberals and conservatives is that liberals are concerned with protecting the rights of everyone, whereas conservatives are primarily concerned only with protecting their own rights.

Let me be very clear about that, by rephrasing it, since we are talking about a spectrum.  In general, as one moves further along the spectrum from conservative to liberal then one can be expected to become less and less selfish and more concerned with the larger community, as well.  In other words, one grows up, and becomes mature enough to think beyond one’s own bedroom and toys, and capable of being responsible for the larger household and belongings of the family.

Yes, I did, in fact, just compare conservatives to children, because over the years that is precisely what they have shown themselves to be.  There may have been a time when that wasn’t the case.  I am trying to be generous by saying that, but it is not, as a general rule, true any more.

So, let’s look at some examples, shall we?  One of the “most-well known liberal” groups in America is the American Civil Liberties Organization.  What is it that makes this group liberal?  Well, primarily it is that they have consistently fought for the rights of everyone in America.  They have done so without regard to ideology, so long as those rights are within the bounds of the Constitution.  This does mean that they have not always stood as staunch supporters of the status quo.

The ACLU has provided legal counsel in support of students’ rights, minority rights, and marriage rights.  The ACLU has supported the bulwark between church and state.  The ACLU has represented the Ku Klux Klan, the Westboro Baptist Church, National Man Boy Love Association, as well as students and other private individuals.  The thing about the ACLU is that as an organization they consistently stand by their principles and will defend the rights of even those individuals and groups that are most repugnant to the members, if those rights are being violated by representatives of the state.  I personally find all of those groups offensive, and yet, I would also personally stand up for their right to speak.  Of course, I would also counter them, and speak back, because that is what free speech is.

Compare that standard to the American Civil Rights Union.  A group that most of us have probably never heard of.  It was founded in 1998 by a former Reagan lackey official, in response to the ACLU being too liberal.  Its board is stocked with former Reagan officials, and will be until they start to die off.  The ACRU is a conservative activist group that masquerades as a civil rights legal foundation.  A screenshot of their home page taken on 4/14/2013 shows that they are not discussing the court cases which they are working on.  They are not talking about the key civil rights issues that they are fighting for.  No.  They are instead hyping their political activism.  They are entitled to do so, of course.  However, in doing so, they make it clear that they are not a civil rights organization, and further illustrate my point.

What cases have they worked on?  It doesn’t appear they have actually done anything.  They have filed many briefs though.  They’ve filed briefs against the ACA, against marriage equality, and in support of the 2^nd amendment in various cases.  They defended the Boy Scouts of America’s right to discriminate against gay troop leaders.  And, so on.
CONTINUED on PAGE 2

An Island Of Care In An Ocean Of Doesn’t

When I started this blog a little over 15 months ago, I had grand expectations of presenting details and facts and having reasoned discussions.  I was quickly reminded that I have a tendency to give people far too much credit for a number of things, which often comes back to bite me in the tokhes.  I tend to expect that people are going to be reasonable, responsive to new information, flexible, and interested in actual facts.  The truth is that most Americans are not actually interested in facts.  Nor are most Americans particularly responsive to new information.  Reasonable?  Nooooo.  This does not leap to mind when most people think of Americans.  Neither in America nor around the world.

Most people go into a situation with their mind already made up, and no amount of information is going to change it.  It would take an extraordinary situation or experience to create any real change within that mind.   More than that, though, it takes a rare individual.

So, for example, you have Dick Cheney, the former Vice-President (since most Americans were unable to identify him was while he was in office), and a truly evil man, who has a lesbian daughter, but maintains that, while he claims to love her, that does not mean she should have the same rights as the rest of America.  Then, you have the much more rare case of Senator Rob Portman (R-OH), who “coming to terms” with the reality of his gay son, decides that means his son deserves the same equal rights as every heterosexual in this country.

These two examples picked from millions that could have been chosen, illustrate the two extremes.  On the one hand, we have the much more common, “Don’t confuse me with the facts.  My mind is already made up.” and on the other, we see someone who, much to the surprise (shock even) of many, completely reversed a previous stance in response to new information.  I think that Sen. Portman still holds many positions that are wrong, but on this he puts it very well:

”That isn’t how I’ve always felt. As a congressman, and more recently as a senator, I opposed marriage for same-sex couples. Then something happened that led me to think through my position in a much deeper way.”

Notice, in particular, that last sentence, because that is the point today.  As much as the issue of marriage equality needs to be addressed in this country, and around the world, that is not the point today.  (I have previously written on that subject, and probably will again.)  I applaud Sen. Portman for showing that he is capable of thinking a subject through, and reaching a new conclusion.  I think that this is very likely a man that while I may very strenuously disagree with his conclusions on a number of other topics, I could at least respect him.  Now, I do grant that a Senator who can’t go through this reasoned process before it hits his own family, so to speak, is not the best choice for a senator, but at least he,as a man, is eventually capable.

I want to make one final point about Sen. Portman, it is this: it is clear that these are not just words from him.  You see, Sen. Portman has previously been such an outspoken opponent that previously some students protested his being the speaker at their commencement, specifically because of this issue.  To even speak the words now is a dramatic change.  Of course, he has to follow through from here with action to be truly meaningful.  But, I am straying, and while that is an important avenue to go down, as I said, it is not where we want to go today.

So, facts rarely persuade people any more.  Maybe they never really did.  Perhaps that too is part of the “goldening” of the past that we are prone to do.  That process that humans tend to go through where we have this nostalgia for and memory of everything in the past being somehow better, and in fact, better than it actually was.
CONTINUED on PAGE 2

Chicken Little Say

The SCIAMAGE space has extended an offer to a number of people from a variety of backgrounds and political view points to submit pieces for inclusion in this space.  They have each been told essentially the same thing, though the specific words may have varied ever so slightly.  Basically though, regardless of the words chosen, what they have been told is their piece will undergo only slight editing, and that will only be for spelling and formatting.  It will never be for grammar (unless requested) as that comes too close to style and that would come to close to voice.  Though I might wish to comment on it, I do not wish to interject my voice into theirs.  It will never be edited for content, as that would impede on free exchange of ideas, and that would defeat the purpose.  It may not, however, include patently false information.  Oh, and only once, have I actually suggested a topic.  Other than that one time, I have left the topics wide open for the guest writer to select.

The group invited has included people of widely different political views, and very different socioeconomic and technological backgrounds.  There are, of course, a few things they each have in common. One thing is that they can all get very passionate about what they believe and hold to be true, while not making it personal.  They can also hold a reasonable conversation.  They are capable of distinguishing, typically, between fact, fiction, and belief.  They will typically be able to provide evidence to support or at least attempt to provide evidence to support their position.  Etc.  In other words, they are reasonable and intelligent people who are capable of having reasonable and intelligent conversations.

If you think that you would like to submit a piece for inclusion in this space, please contact the SCIAMAGE through the links below.

Today, the SCIAMAGE space is pleased to bring you the first response to this offer.  Jeffrey Jones, is a man of varied background.  A father, a former instructor, currently working with a defense contractor (we can’t tell you more, or we’d have to kill you under the current NDAA and justification for drone use, and we wouldn’t want to have to do that!!), a gamer (board, role, and online), educated, diverse interests, Buddhist, traveler, and much more.  And, on a personal note, a hell of a Mensch.   That’s really more than you need by way of an introduction, because the piece that Jeff has provided stands on its own without any introduction.  It could well have been written by any man, woman, or child in America today, who pauses to look around.  Any man, woman, or child who stops to think, and doesn’t forget to start again.

And, without further ado, please, enjoy today’s SCIAMAGE guest column from Jeffrey Jones.

It’s time that this rampant hyperbole about being under attack ended. It’s sole purpose is to rouse the ignorant and muddy the waters about the evolution of life for humans.

The theory goes that various groups are under attack because the way they have led their lives, or gone about their business, or the manner in which they have acted for no good reason, apart perhaps from jealousy, or fear or propaganda. It certainly could not be that these things are no longer acceptable to the rest of us.

White people are under attack because they are no longer in the vast majority here in America. But is that true? As of the 2010 census results:

Race / Ethnicity	Number	Percentage of U.S. population
Americans	308,745,538	100.0 %
White or European American	223,553,265	72.4 %
Black or African American	38,929,319	12.6 %
Asian American	14,674,252	4.8 %
Amer. Ind. or Alaska Native	2,932,248	0.9 %
Hawaiian/Pac. Islander	540,013	0.2 %
Some other race	19,107,368	6.2 %
Two or more races	9,009,073	2.9 %

72.4% of Americans identify themselves as Caucasian. And, they are under attack because it used to be more.  You’ll note that Hispanic or Latino is not included in this chart, as, according to the Census Bureau, “Persons whose ethnicity is identified as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race.”  But 16.4% of all races identified themselves as Hispanic or Latino.  In 1960, non-Hispanic white persons made up 85% of the American population, by 2042 they are projected to have lost the strong majority, only accounting for 46.3% of the population, still the largest group, but not a solid, over-powering majority.

Why is this a scary set of statistics? Why is the natural progress of life a “threat” to the comfortable majority?
CONTINUED on PAGE 2

Occupy Every Day

Every once in a while it is important to revisit older topics, that we’ve discussed before.  Today, I would like to come back to a couple of those, because they remain important and relevant.

If we are going to maintain pressure and relevance, then we have to continue to remember to act, right?  One of the major knocks against the Occupy movement, for example, is that it lost focus.  Certainly the occupation of major parks, and the various actions that were taken beginning in September of 2011 were breathtaking and stoked the imagination.  They fired me up.  They captured the hopes of many who were struggling to find “hope and change” in an America that had yet again been lied to and misled.

And, then, they fell apart.  As with most inclusive movements, it fell prey to its own grand ideals.  Instead of staying focused on the financial purposes that it started with, it wanted to be leaderless and then it became amorphous and had so many tentacles and purposes that it lost its relevance.  Oh, to be sure, it still exists.  The movement that is.  I believe that there are still a few active occupations.  Somewhere… Maybe.  Even I have lost track, and interest.  They lost me when they got off track.  And, yes, I admit that I boisterously proclaimed that it was the last great hope for America.  I even went so far in my fervor at the time as to say that if it failed, then I would start voting for the most evil right wing candidate I could find in order to simply hasten the fall of America.  “Bring on the burning,” I said.

I retract those words, and acknowledge my own foolishness in having said them.  I can only say that I was fired up and hopeful.  I was excited and trying to get others equally fired up and motivated.  I do still believe that it had great potential.  Had there been some strong hands to guide it and maintain focus at the core, then it could have accomplished great things.  I do think that it had impact, in changing the focus of the conversation ever so slightly.  It was not the impact though that it could have had, and the damn Tea Partiers are still holding too much sway.  Largely that is because there was too heavy an influence in the Occupy movement that simply felt that they could somehow change the system without actually being participants in the system.

There are only two ways to change a political system.  One can either participate in and change it from with in, or one can violently overthrow it.  That’s it.  There are no other alternatives to changing it.  If you play a pussy-foot, half-in-half-out game then what happens is that you wind up supporting (whole heartedly) the status quo.  That is what happened with the occupy movement.  Too many wanted to try to maintain the illusion that they were above and beyond the system, while still enjoying the benefits of that system.  They wanted the technological benefits (the iPods, the smart phones, the lap top computers, the internet, the wifi, etc), they wanted the Constitutional protections, the responsiveness of the elected representatives, and all that the system had to offer.  They screamed for and demanded their rights.  “Whose park?  Our Park!” and “This is what Democracy looks like” they screamed.  Hell, I screamed, for I took my boys and went down to the streets, too.  But, for all too many of them, they didn’t then want to exercise their responsibilities.  They didn’t want to vote, or participate in the jury pools.  They didn’t want to pay taxes or support that same government that they railed against.  They didn’t want to participate by electing the candidates that would support the views that they wanted supported.  They were only half-in.
CONTINUED on PAGE 2

Sanctions Against Americans

In 2004, I worked for a small company.  (At least by standard definitions.  It always seemed to me to be at least a midsized company, but then, I think those definitions are a bit whack.  Still, we’ll stick with the standards for now.)  When the time came for the annual raise process, one of the things that was said was that we should be happy because we were receiving “3 times the average raise.”  Our president and CEO went on to tell us that the average raise in the country at that time was 4%.  Now, at the time, I didn’t check, because it didn’t matter.  What mattered was that he was a liar.  I had not, in fact, received a 12% raise, and I called him out on it. The next day, I did get an adjustment and my pay raise was increased to that 12%.  It’s probably a good thing I didn’t research it, because the actual average increase was only 3.5%.)

Those kinds of things can happen in a small company and they could happen back then, too.  It was a bit before the economy nearly completely collapsed.  It appeared the economy was, in fact, booming along.

Times are different, eh?  This year, the average pay increase in America is expected to be 3%.  Even less if you are working in the public sector.  In the county where I live, those employees haven’t had a merit pay raise in 5 years.  Federal Employees, generally, continue to be on hold for raises, and many of them are facing the possibility of furloughs thanks to the game of Sequestration^TM that the Republicans and Democrats you all elected are playing this month.

Do I need to remind you, yet again, that those employees are your family and friends?  We are not talking about welfare for some faceless person that you can demonize and look down on.  People that you can pretend meet your stereotype of the drug addicted, slut that doesn’t have any desire to work but rather just wants to drain you for all you’re worth, right?  We are talking about the people that are out there working for a living supporting the daily functions that you, yes you whether you like it or not, rely on for the smooth functioning of the government.  And, yes, I did say smooth functioning of the government.  I am not talking about all the BS in congress, and the bickering and backbiting of the presidency.  I’m talking about the DOT, the food and health inspectors.  I’m talking about the people who process the payments to the Medicare doctors, and the checks to the Social Security recipients.  Air traffic controllers.  So called security personnel.  The civilian employees of the Defense Department.  The Veterans Affairs department.

I am talking about 1 million or so people who are part of the backbone of the government.  Not the ugly face of politics that so many people think of when they want to criticize and withdraw from it.  I’m talking about the part that matters.  You remember that part right?

I digress from the point I actually wanted to focus on today, because this too is an important point, and one you need to remember as you allow this game to be played out in your name.  When there is pain that is felt, it won’t be at the top.  Like any sanctions, it isn’t the leadership that pays the price.  It is the rank and file.  The people at the bottom.  Maybe even in the middle.  Sanctions are a political tool designed to foment revolution from within.  Either by causing sufficient discontent among the masses that the leadership can’t contain it and relents on their own, or by causing sufficient discontent that the masses literally arise in revolt.  Allowing this sequester to proceed is a calculated move by both the Democratic leadership and the Republican leadership to put sanctions on the American people with the precise same intent.

And, lest there be any misunderstanding, that is the precise reason that I am somewhat in favor of them myself.  I hope that this is a case of both parties having taken very careful aim before shooting themselves in the foot.  I hope that they have very carefully calculated this out correctly and will cause just enough damage to the people and the economy that it will finally cause sufficient discontent among the American masses to lead to an end of the far right domination of the politics in America.

I think I’ll hold my intended topic for next week.  It’ll keep.

Fallacious Arguments on a Slippery Slope Lead to Foolish Appearances

There are many foolish arguments made every day and in so many contexts. Arguments in the supposedly “reasoned” sense.  Not arguments in the childish, “No, you didn’t. Yes, I did” sense, though we do see plenty of that, as well.

So, for example, we see the “Criminals don’t obey laws” argument against any sort of gun control, and this is supposed to stop the discussion, because there are supposedly enough laws already.  Of course, this is stupid.  The basic fallacy is in the construct itself.  They are criminals because they didn’t obey the laws.  Not vice versa.  This is not a stereotypical chicken verses egg argument.  No, what little validity in it is that once one has started to break some laws it does psychologically become easier to break some others, but this is neither a straight line progression, nor is it a complete break such that all lines are broken.

The old saw that, “There is no honor amongst thieves” is a bunch of hooey that really only serves to make sanctimonious do-gooders feel superior because they are following the laws that they have laid down upon everyone else.  There is actually a great deal of honor among those who would break the laws of the “upper world”.  To live in the “under world” that we have created, requires that one be very honorable, because to be without honor, is often to be dead very quickly.  Particularly if one is floating around anywhere other than the basic get along stream of junkies.  Outside of that, one’s word is more important than in almost any other realm you can imagine in this western world, and the consequence is not just being shunned.  The consequences can be dire.  But, I am straying into the psychology of criminology and the anthropology of the underworld far more than I intended to, and more than is required to make the point.  The point is that, in that world, the ability to count on someone’s word is more frequently literally a matter of life and death, whereas in the “upper world” it is, the vast majority of the time, all talk.

I saw a piece this week that made me think about this again.  It was beautifully written and, yet, all too many people will dismiss it.  A short little piece posted by Andy Borowitz in the New Yorker.  A Letter from Kim Jong-Un pretty wonderfully highlighted another couple stupid arguments being made in this same context.

In the immortal words of my dad, the glorious Kim Jong-il: “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a nuke is a good guy with a nuke.”

and

If you join today, we will waive the initiation fee and send you this bumper sticker: “Nuclear weapons don’t kill people. People kill people who don’t have nuclear weapons.”

My grandfather used to say, “Locks only keep honest people out.”  To some extent that’s true.  However, the other side of that is that it makes it more difficult, and to parody the right-wing’s arguments, “We keep our money locked up, don’t we?”  Gah!

So, what then are the answers?  We need to stop the bullshit arguments.  We need to have a real, adult conversation.  We need to have a multi-dimensional approach.  The real answers are going to start at home.  Start with teaching our children to be responsible, caring, compassionate, human beings that contribute to society rather than just looking at society, the world, and each other in terms of what they can take from it.

In a legal sense though, there are things we can and need to do:

• Strengthen and enforce the laws which are on the books already.  The so-called gun show loop holes.
• Require universal background check regardless of how or where the gun is sold.
• Issue FEDERAL licenses to purchase a gun.  This should probably come in categories, much like a driver’s license.  I would have this run through the Health and Safety, and do whatever reorganization would be required to make that happen.

CONTINUED on PAGE 2

Educate and grow! Indoctrinate and stall!

 educate

Pronunciation: /ˈɛdjʊkeɪt/

verb

    give intellectual, moral, and social instruction to (someone), typically at a school or university: she was educated at a boarding school

• ·         provide or pay for instruction for (one’s child), especially at a school: she had crises of conscience about how best to educate her youngest child

• ·         give (someone) training in or information on a particular subject: a plan to educate the young on the dangers of drugs [with object and infinitive]: the need to educate people to conserve water

Here is today’s shocking truth for you.  Some of you will know this consciously.  Others will know it subconsciously.  Some will deny it strenuously.  View it how you may, it is a sad, truth.

indoctrinate

Pronunciation: /ɪnˈdɒktrɪneɪt/

verb

    teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically: broadcasting was a vehicle for indoctrinating the masses

• ·         archaic teach or instruct (someone): he indoctrinated them in systematic theology

Most parents, hell, most people in the world, and in particular in America do not really want to teach their children.  They damn sure do not want other people’s children taught!  They want them indoctrinated.  They want them to be indoctrinated in very specific ways.  In the same ways that they were.

I admit it.  There was a period when I had to overcome it myself.  My oldest son was around 3 when I realized it.  I even verbalized it to his mother.  I told her, “You know, it isn’t that we don’t want our kids to be indoctrinated.  It’s just that we want them to be indoctrinated in the same beliefs that we hold dear.”  It was the beginning of an internal dialogue that went on to break through that particular log jam in my own head.  Fortunately, he was young enough, that I don’t think he suffered too much for it.

Anyway, that is the point, isn’t it?  For most people, they never really look past the, I want my child to believe the same as I do.  I have consistently taught my kids, to think for themselves.  I have been writing this with the hopes of educating, and yes, convincing, you, but in each and every case, I have presented evidence and arguments, and asked that you think for yourselves.  At no time would I ask that you simply take my word for it.  Take what I say and verify it.  Go do your own research.  It’s out there.

When it comes to my children, beyond the basics of parental responsibility (chores, teaching modern hygiene, safety, etc), I expected them to think for themselves.  Absolutely listen to me, but question it.  Go out and research it.  If you can show me where I am wrong, go ahead.  Please do.  I will admit it.  I am okay with that.  I would rather admit that I am wrong, learn from it and move on.  In fact, I made it a point to let my kids see me admit I was wrong when I was.  I thought it was a valuable lesson for them to see.

And, that is what is missing from many people, but in particular what is missing from the right wing as a rule.  For example, despite the overwhelming mass of evidence over the last 40 years, not to mention all of the previous experiments with it, they continue to insist that supply side economics works.  Despite all the collapsed sectors of the economy where they had to violate their own expressed principles and step in to prop up those sectors in order to not have them drag down the rest of their carefully constructed system of wealth redistribution, they continue to insist that this focus on moving more and more wealth in to the hands of fewer and fewer people works.  In fact, they want to do so at a faster and faster pace.  They continue to insist that not only should we not raise taxes, but that we need to cut spending.  But, the only places that the far right wants to cut spending, of course, is on the backs of the poorest of our citizens, and on what’s left of the middle class.  They want to cut the very programs that are most needed.

They also, of course, say that they want to cut the programs that actually pay for themselves.  How ironic, no?  (Again, this is why I have previously said that Conservatism is no longer a philosophy.  It is a religion.  It is no longer based on thought and reason, but rather on belief, superstition, and indoctrination. “accept a set of beliefs uncritically”)
CONTINUED on PAGE 2

Roll up your sleeves, put away the toys, and lets do this!

Do you ever get tired of having the same conversations over and over again?  That overwhelming déjà moo striking you like a ton of bricks?  I know I do.  There are legitimate reasons to repeat a conversation.  For example, when there are new conditions, new facts, or if one has new students and needs to teach them.  However, this is so often not the case.  Particularly when the topic and context is our national political scene.

So, we discuss “gun control”, again, and one loud segment screams “You can have my guns when you pry them from my cold, dead hands,” as though confiscation is what reasonable people mean when they’re discussing gun control.  Reasonable people start to discuss ways that we could try to keep guns in the hands of responsible, sane people, out of the hands of insane, impulsive people, and from needlessly killing innocents.  And, yes, I suppose that there is likely a small segment who does advocate for the collection and destruction of all of the guns.  Though, honestly, I can’t find them anywhere other than in the ravings of the lunatic right-wing paranoiacs.  We go through this dance every few years, but the truth is that nothing has really changed in regards to guns themselves over the last half-century or so.  There has been some technological improvement in the ammunition and some in the firing rate, but essentially, we are still using the same guns we were using nearly a hundred years ago.  In fact, in some cases, we are literally using the same guns.  So, what has changed?  That is where our real focus needs to be, but as with so many things, we can’t get past the trees to see the forest.

Besides, that would mean looking in the mirror and taking responsibility.  That would mean, that we stop blaming the “schools”, the “government”, “Hollywood”, etc and accept our own personal responsibility in the choices that we have made as individuals, as parents, and as a society.  I am going to come back this in a moment.

It’s not just with guns that we keep having these same discussions, is it?  How many times in the last 15 years or so have we had national conversations about reforming the electoral process or campaign finance reform?  How successful has that been?  Why?  Because the people we send to do the job really have no interest in doing the job, and we, as a society, have not maintained any real interest in achieving a result either.  Think about where you work.  Let’s assume for the sake of discussion, and because I am sure that you are a responsible person, that you diligently work throughout the day, as you should.  When you look around though, I am sure you see a number of your co-workers who are frequently not.  They’re talking to others, taking extra breaks, surfing the internet, filing their nails, etc.  At a larger scale, this is essentially what happens with campaign finance reform, and all of the other things that we send our “leaders” to Washington, state capitals, and even the local county and city halls to change and address.  We send them there, and then there is no real oversight, so they get side-tracked with the perks or games playing.  The few who may care are incapable of accomplishing much because the others are too busy playing.  Until the deadlines approach.  At that point though, now all eyes are on them, and they have to seem to be doing their jobs to the best of their ability.  Which, sadly, they have been all along.
CONTINUED on PAGE 2